Language

Language attitudes

No words for individual rights

HERE we go again. The idea that language regulates thought is as old as the hills. (See The Economist's debate on the subject here.) But while experts debate the scientific particulars, laymen sometimes put it to such lazy and odious use that Johnson cannot help but respond. In this week's issue of Mint Lounge—the weekend edition of an Indian business newspaper run in association with the Wall Street Journal—Aakar Patel, a columnist, argues in favour of restricting free speech in India.

Mr Patel makes his case using the single most shameful event in 21st century Indian history: the 2002 riots in the state of Gujarat, during which hundreds of Muslims were slaughtered by Hindus as authorities stood aside and watched. The riots started when a train carriage filled with Hindu pilgrims was set ablaze at a station in Gujarat as they returned from a holy site in north India. 58 men, women and children were killed. Hindu mobs retaliated against the local Muslims, spurred on, says Mr Patel, by local newspapers. So free speech must be regulated because Hindi- and Gujarati-speaking Indians will believe anything they read in the papers.

In a series of baseless assertions, Mr Patel claims that the reason all Muslims were blamed for the massacre is that Indians have a collective identity and behaviour. Why? How? He doesn't say. But he adds:

It is difficult to explain to Indians the wrongness of collective punishment. This is because our identity is collective, and so is our behaviour. The understanding that this is wrong comes mainly to those who speak English. Individuals are more easily produced by English because it opens access to the world outside the tribe. It is able to place us outside the narrow definitions assigned to us by Gujarati and Hindi. [Emphasis mine]

Where to begin? The absence of a word from language A in language B is often used to prove that the latter lacks the concept. This is easily disproved: Schadenfreude means satisfaction at another's misfortune. That no single word for this exists in English doesn't mean English-speaking people are incapable of feeling the emotion. They just take a number of words to express it. That is a flimsy enough argument at the best of times. But Hindi does not lack the word for individual (व्यक्ति, vyakti; the Gujarati word is similar).

Maybe Mr Patel means individual rights cannot be expressed in Hindi. In that case perhaps he should read the Hindi version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2 would tell him that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, ... or other status." And Article 3 would have told the murderous rioters in Gujarat, in their choice of Hindi or Gujarati, that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

But I dwell on technicalities. Mr Patel must surely mean that it is an education in English—and therefore with western, enlightenment values—that produces smart, rational beings. “The damage is done by a Hindi-medium world view,” he writes, whereas English “opens access to the world outside the tribe”. Without getting into the wisdom of calling the 240m-odd speakers of Hindi (and mutually comprehensible Urdu) or 46m speakers of Gujarati “tribes”, perhaps Mr Patel is getting his causality the wrong way around.

The Indians who speak English already have access to the outside world. The 2001 census found that a mere 230,000 Indians spoke it as their native tongue. These, presumably, are the people that speak the language well enough to be influenced by the underlying culture that Mr Patel argues in favour of. But to speak English as a native language means going to an expensive private school in a city. The conditions for that ensure that these English-speakers come from wealthy or least upper middle class families. Having money means having security. That, in turn, means you don't blame your poor neighbours for everything that is wrong with your life.

In her remarkable new book about life in a Mumbai slum, Katherine Boo, a New Yorker staffer, concludes that the world's unequal societies don't explode into violent insurrection because poor people pick on other poor people, not the rich. Just as the wealth flowing into India has yet to trickle down to its very poorest (though it has already lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty), the troubles of the poor leave the better off unaffected. Hundreds of Muslims died in riots in 2002 because poor Hindus expressed their frustrations at day-to-day life against equally poor Muslims. In 1992, when similar riots spread across India, it was the poorest towns and neighbourhoods that became war zones. The nice bits of town remained relatively peaceful.

The barbaric behaviour seen in Indian riots has everything to do with poverty and despair and nothing to do with language. Columns such as those by Mr Patel in business newspapers for English-speaking city people only blame the poor for not lifting themselves out of poverty, in this case by schooling their children in their own language.

This blog reminds me of the proverb, "If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail". You read way, way too much into Mr. Patel's article, which has nothing to do with either language or Whorf's hypothesis. All he's saying is English speaking introduces Indians to outside influence and knowledge. The gist of Patel's rather well argued article is that inflammatory newspapers and acts should be controlled as they very easily lead to riots in India. If you want to argue against the free speech aspect of it, you're welcome to it. But the kind of fallacious attack you have pulled here is rather shameful.

"In her remarkable new book about life in a Mumbai slum, Katherine Boo, a New Yorker staffer, concludes that the world’s unequal societies don’t explode into violent insurrection because poor people pick on other poor people, not the rich."

I had to read this sentence a few times to get the meaning. A rephrase might be in order - the structure "A doesn't B because C" could be read two different ways. One way is "C; therefore A doesn't B". The other way is "A Bs, but not because C." The former reading was correct here, but required the initial assumption that "the world's unequal societies don't explode into violent insurrection" - which is not exactly a self-evident assumption.

9)In gujarat 2002 riots, Accused were identified and prosecuted in almost all big cases. Many convictions have been handed down but Media wants 100% conviction rate with an attitude that "You are Guilty even though you are proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt". On the other hand, In 1980s, Hindu Pandit Genocide in Kashmir, No attempt has been made to identify and prosecute the accused. Nobody has been identified as accused. No Supreme court monitored Investigation Team or NIA agency formed. Not a single media or so-called Human Right's organization has spoken about need to identify and prosecute those who are guilty of Pandit guilty.

The Gujrat riot may have nothing to do with language, but I think it is safe to believe that it has something to do with education. I agree with the basic premise that poverty is a strong contributing cause, but education cannot be ignored. I am referring to an education beyond basic reading, writing, and arithmetic -- a broad-based education breeds awareness of other viewpoints, and being aware of other viewpoints can lead to greater tolerance. A broad-based education can not only lead to more cosmopolitan attitudes, but can also breed a healthy skepticism -- people are less likely to simply accept assertions blindly, but may become more apt to ask probing questions, which may lead to different conclusions. An educated populace is less likely to be misled by assumptions and prejudices.

This is not to say that India is under-educated; it certainly has a wealth of highly educated people, and this population is growing by leaps and bounds. However, the class stratification in India still persists (although certainly not as bad as it was 30 years ago, when I last visited the country), and there are educational gaps between these strata.

Not to defend this columnist's rather unpleasantly colonial attitude to Hindi and Gujarati, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the pop-Whorfianism that you attempt to read into it. He doesn't claim anywhere that Hindi or Gujarati has no word for the relevant concepts (he surely knows that they do); rather, that learning English "opens access to the world outside the tribe" and as such makes people more likely to accept ideas foreign to their own culture, among which he would include individual responsibility. The claim that individual responsibility is an idea alien to Hinduism should certainly be controversial. The claim that bilingualism exposes people to ideas not commonly endorsed within their own culture, however, is a truism.

From your description, Mr Patel is taking the easy (and popular) path. If behavior is determined by language (or economic circumstance in childhood, or any other condition outside the individual's control), then no blame can be attached to bad behavior.

"I couldn't help myself!" is just a variant on "The Devil made me do it!" How much more comfortable for those like Mr Patel to cast the blame elsewhere, rather than have to admit that those taking the action are responsible for their misbehavior.

Facts:
1) What causes riot?
Most riots have an immediate cause but one should not confuse trigger or tipping point as the only cause. In other words, Last straw is not the only straw which killed Camel's back. For Example, "Why African American's were punishing all-others for an act of a lone gun-man killing MLK Jr?" is a wrong question. MLK's murder was the tipping point which triggered 1968 USA riots, The other causes namely history, lack of civil rights, race-politics were a huge factor.
In another example, Even though, massacre of 59 hindu pilgrims mostly women, seniors, and children was the tipping point which triggered 2002 gujarat riots. The other causes namely, history, lack of freedom of worship, past communal riots, anti-hinduness of pseudo-secular establishment, were a huge factor. If situation is very close to tipping point then even a smallest event, like 2 banana vendors fighting for space in 1980s Godhra, can cause communal riots.

3) Allegation of Government Inaction, during civil unrest, are cheap and easy. This allegation can be made in almost all civil unrest in the world except Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre where British Colonial Government promptly shot Indian-civilians as soon as section 144 was violated.
Examples of such cheap allegations:
a) London 2011 riots, Washington DC 1968 riot or most-other western riots: Government inaction and negligence lead to destruction. Police did not fire even a rubber bullet.
b) Tinanmen Square China: Government inaction for 1st 7 days lead to destruction and situation getting out of control.
c) Gujarat 2002: Government inaction for 1st 3 days lead to destruction. Police responded by arresting 35,552 civilians without filing charge ( arrest without filing charge violates Article 9 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) , fired 10,000 rounds of bullets killing 170 civilians and injuring many more.

4) "What level of force should government use in civil-riots?" The standard-answer is "Minimum non-lethal force, and complete protection of human rights" and standard-strategy is "If police force is too small to set a perimeter and control the rioters then temporarily withdraw police force from troubled area to avoid confrontation". Mantra is "Rapid, non-lethal, and numerically strong response". Mayor Walter Washington is roundly applaused for using almost no force and not allowing even a single shot to be fired during 1968 Washington DC riots. Eisenhower was condemned for suggesting that police should fire in air.

5) Double Standard in Government Response:
Government's across the world have double standard (i.e., If my supporters are rioting then kid-glove else iron-fist). This is clearly seen in Labor Unrest during Industrial Era. A Governor elected with Labor Union Endorsement behaves quite differently then a governor who was not endorsed by Labor Union.

6) Double Standard of Media and so called Human Right's Organization:
Media and so called Human right's organization suffer from ideology based double standard (i.e., If my favorites are rioting then kid-glove else iron-fist). They cry policy brutality when a single shot is fired by police in Kashmir but they want more police brutality in Gujarat 2002 riots. Much more appalling is the way media censors death of 312 Hindus, tries to pass off Godhra Massacre as accident, and justify massacre with fake-stories (the story has been proven fake beyond reasonable doubt in courts, and Justice Nanavati & Shah Judicial inquiry Commission) of abduction of muslim woman by train passengers.

7) How easy it is to control riots ?
In 2011 North-West London riots, It took 3 days and 16000 police officers to bring an extremely small geographic area, which BTW is a metro, under control. In 2002 Gujarat, Riots happened at several hotspots, like cities, towns, remote villages, tribal area, over 196030 sq.km area.

8) How easy it is to prevent riots ?
Watch the tipping point. Farther the environment is from tipping point the better.

(*) Death toll numbers are from Congress UPA Government's, whose political interest lies in higher death toll, statement in Parliament.

If what you mean is words are limited and limiting in fulfilling the function of expressing thoughts, feelings and experiences, I must agree with you. Completely. Not only that, I think words own the greatest potential of miscommunicating what is to be communicated. Other means of expression avail themselves in this regard. For mathematicians, it is math; for musicians, it is music (Robert Schumann said music is the least susceptible to being misunderstood); for artists, it is art. But even those may not suffice as full and perfect. But I understand you to be saying less than 100% is a better feeling than 100%. That I agree perfectly. I hope it is all right that I reply. Let me know if it is not and I will stop.

the write up is certainly well informed in facts & reasoning, but it cannot be denied that language is related to ethnicity,thus forming a distinct identity to its speakers.religion is a very strong component of group identity. the partition of India was led by middle & upper class Muslims. such upheavals are not always only due to poverty of people involved in them.

If the premise holds water, that language regulates thought, wouldn't it behoove everyone to learn as many languages as they can so no one stays a hill-billy in all the bad senses of the word?

That's one perspective, and may explain why there are so many hillbillies in the world who, in the main, are the trouble-makers.

But I do not believe for one moment the premise is leak-proof. Consider all the great thinkers in human civilzation who did not think and write in more than one language. Consider their thoughts. Are thoughts absolutely language-bound? I think not.